miller (04/09/83)
#N:uiucdcs:10600094:000:7087 uiucdcs!miller Apr 8 15:47:00 1983 I haven't read net.misc in about 3-4 months (I don't have the time). Neverthe- less, someone informed me that articles had appeared here on the Paluxy River footprints in Glen Rose, TX. I had the opportunity to spend spring break at the McFall farm on the Paluxy and have read literature on both sides of the issue. My conclusion: the tracks are genuine. I think the literature (at least, that written by people on both sides who have been there first hand) and my own ex- perience leads me to that conclusion. We found 31 dinosaur footprints, 3 barefoot man tracks, and 3 ``possible'' moccasin tracks while I was there last week. In talking with people here at the Univ of Illinois, I have found three levels of knowledge on the subject: LEVEL 1: Some people simply define the tracks out of existance. They claim they don't exist. However, as this site (and others like it; Paluxy is not alone - it is simply the biggest known so far) gets more media attention, people are starting to become more aware and so the number of people in Level 1 is getting smaller. LEVEL 2: The tracks exist, but they aren't old footprints. This category can be divided into several subsections. For example, some claim that the tracks are erosion patterns from the Paluxy, dinosaur tail drags, etc. This explains some, but not all of the features. Indeed, erosion patterns and tail drags can be found. But erosion patterns and tail drags do not create subtle human foot features such as toe impressions, ball of foot, arch, heel, and other distinct characteristics. Despite what has been claimed on the net (as reported in some publications) these features do exist in many of the prints and are in correct sizes and proportions in a clear right-left sequence. You know, one of the reasons Austrolopithecus is claimed by some to have walked upright is that Mary Leakey found a footprint in rock strata in which bones such as Lucy, etc. were found. But that footprint is not nearly as good as quality as some of those found in the Paluxy River; yet no one questions that *some* primate made that track. The only reason the Glen Rose footprints are rejected is that they are found in Cretaceous limestone (a case of theory getting in the way of fact it appears to me). Another explanation for the tracks is that they were carved as hoaxes. Again, this has some merit, but it does not explain all of the data. In the Depression era, the local residents found that there was a market for these prints. So, they began cutting them out of the limestone and selling them. Eventually, however, the supply of known footprints (mostly dinosaur since they brought a higher price) ran out. A man by the name of Bull Adams learned that he could carve the things easier than he could remove the top heavy limestone layers and discover new ones. So, he began to carve them (again, mostly dinos although a few human ones were carved). However, since the time of Bull Adams, new tracks have been discovered, sometimes in full view of the media and evolutionary scientists sent to ``oversee'' the work. This is well documented in the literature if you care to spend the time searching it all out. And last, I need to mention one final evidence that the tracks are genuine. In some places, the original mud was not homogenous. In those cases, a series of lamination lines can be observed by cross-sectioning the prints. In the case of carvings (either by water erosion or by human tools) the depressions cut through the lamination lines. In genuine footprints made when the mud was soft, the lamination lines follow the contour of the depression. Many of these prints have been subjected to cross-sectioning and have been shown to be authentic. LEVEL 3: The prints are real footprints, but they are not human. This is the response usually given by evolutionary scientists who have had the opportunity to observe first-hand the excavation of some of the better prints (you realize, of course, that there is a variety of quality in the prints - both dino and human. This is to be expected for any animal walking through mud which may vary in consistency, wetness, etc.) This is a fair point to raise. After all, no living human was alive when the prints were laid down in the Cretaceous lime- stone. Thus, the creationists cannot ``prove'' that a man made the prints. However, the question then raised for evolutionists is if men did not make the tracks, what did? Any primate does not solve the problem, for none were supposed to be around at that time. Some have told me that an unknown dino made the prints. This may be correct. However, such a dinosaur with footpads so remarkably close to man has not yet been found. It is a hypothetical creature. That does not mean that it does not exist. One person on the net even went so far as to name dinos in combination with some algae, etc. Most scientists who have seen the tracks do not like such proposals as the anatomical features are so good and so consistent (in some places) that it appears that the prints would have to be made by an animal with a foot IDENTICAL to man. No fossil bones have been found for such a creature. But I have seen prints first hand, in pictures, and casts. For my money, at least, some of the prints are so good, I find acceptance of men at that time an easier model to swallow than a model which has to appeal to animals for which no evidence has been found (and, indeed, is a little hard to imagine). I suppose I should make one additional comment. One person suggested (from an article he read) that the prints were so big that they couldn't possibly have been human. Once again, this data is partially true but does not tell the whole story. Some children's prints have been found, as well as normal adult sized prints. Nevertheless, most prints are on the order of 14-16 inches long, which is pretty big for most people alive today. Such a human would have to be about 8 feet tall. And yet, the creationists raise what I consider to be two valid responses. First, there are a few people today who are quite tall (check out the roster on the NBA). Second, they correctly point out that Genesis claims that before the flood ``there were giants in those days''. So I don't feel I can reject the fossil footprints out of hand on those grounds. Finally, for those truely interested in learning more about those prints, others have already mentioned articles critical of these prints. I suggest you read those. But a truely objective person likes to hear *both* sides of an issue. The best work I have seen the creationists put out so far on these fossils is a book by Dr. John Morris, ``Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs'', 1980. It has lots of maps, pictures, diagrams, as well as a good history of the controversy over these tracks. Flames may be sent to /dev/null. I don't have the time or interest to read or respond to flaming on net.misc. (I spent too much time already just typing in this (too long) note.) Serious questions/comments may be mailed to me and I'll try and respond eventually. pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller A. Ray Miller